I’d really like to see something to back up this assertion as that is not my experience of Christianity. In fact my experience is just the opposite. Death is not to be feared and insignificance is not that big a deal. I just sat though an hour discussion of how your deeds should not be about you and that seems to actully demand a certain acceptance of insignificance. I’m also fairly sure that few Christians (or people for that matter) contemplate non-existence and I personally don’t really see whats so scary about the idea anyway.
Now I wont deny that there may be certain Christian sects that are based on fear, but I’m sure you can find a Christian sect that has almost any false belief you could name.
I’d like to see something to back up your assertion.
I think you’re missing the point. Christians will say they don’t fear death because they believe they are going to heaven to be with all their loved ones.
The main points of the religion are 1. God loves you (ie you’re significant,) and 2. You get to go to heaven (ie no death and no non-existence after death.) Its appeal to those who are afraid of dying or who are looking for meaning in life is obvious.
I agree with this, but in a slightly different way; I think the opening sentences there get at something significant that is being glossed over a bit in the thread. To wit, the basic operating assumption of the scientific approach, the fundamental starting point of the method, is to say, “This could be wrong; it’s the best explanation we have right now, and we will operate conditionally, as if it’s true; but again, it could be wrong.” From there, you can move into the actual methods of inquiry – nonlocal repeatability, and all that – but you have to start with the assumption that your beliefs could be incorrect, and as such warrant validation.
This mindset underlies all of science, and it is almost literally alien to the average person. It takes serious training, and a huge amount of mental discipline, to internalize this and make it part of one’s worldview. Most people, clearly, don’t understand this about science; they think it’s about coming up with the actual answers, the final definite truths. That’s just their mental bias, because it’s what they want.
(Which is why Calculon’s assertions about “post-modernism versus empirical absolutism,” or whatever, are off base, because science has never claimed absolutism. That’s an imposition of outsiders, either laypeople who look to science to give them The Truth the way others look to religion, or leaders who cloak their ideological manipulations in scientific rationalizations. Either way, it’s wrong.)
Religion usually gets tagged as the Enemy in discussions about why science (legitimate science, rigorously and methodologically defensible science) has had such a hard time making serious inroads into public thinking, because religion does lay claim to the truth. We have the answers, say the religious leaders; we are the way, say the scriptures. Naturally, any school of thought that comes along and says, Actually, we have some answers too, and what’s more we have a way of getting them that anyone can learn, will be in conflict with existing dogmas.
But it’s not limited to religion. There are lots of philosophies in the world that resist examination by scientific methods; Lysenkoism, as mentioned, was formulated in service to Soviet ideology, which even though it isn’t an “actual” religion certainly behaves in pseudo-religious fashion. Lysenko’s theory was not developed or defended according to scientific methods and cannot be used as ammunition against it. Indeed, it demonstrates quite clearly the pseudo-religious approach of the Soviet regime.
Yes, religion does have a few superficial trappings that conflict directly with scientific activity (“Do not put the Lord your God to the test,” and all that). People looking for a scriptural basis to distrust science can isolate that and other passages to argue with the methods of science, which require everything to be tested and re-tested, not just directly, but indirectly, verified against neighboring data.
But what I’m really getting at here is that science is hard not because it demands math or memorization or copious study, but because it is mentally weird. From the outside, many people see it as a juggernaut of fact-finding, and a solid edifice of concrete information; but on the inside, it is built, deliberately, on a foundation of uncertainty. It’s apparently contradictory unless you’re extremely familiar with, and accustomed to, the basic mindset. Scientists have no problem revisiting and revising hypotheses, adjusting theories, rejiggering their explanatory frameworks. But from the outside, the superficial perception of science as the aforementioned edifice is in direct conflict with that constant shifting of “belief,” and that apparent uncertainty regarding what we “know.” No wonder the poorly educated masses have begun to decide that science is untrustworthy.
Because what people are really looking for is answers – for Truth. It looked for a while like science was going to be the most reliable source, which is where the Modernism movement came from (and what Post-modernism reacted to), but the reality is, science never made that assertion, or those promises. Those came from politicians and other leaders, including, yes, crypto-scientific leaders who put on a white coat but acted in a political capacity. Science, at its core, never says anything more firm than “this is the best we have right now.” In different cases, they may hedge that statement one way or another: this is the best we have, and we admit it isn’t particularly solid (string theory), versus, this is the best we have, and we’re confident it’s pretty reliable (germ theory). But at the end of the day, it all comes down to: This is the best explanation we have right now, and we reserve the right to change it if better information comes along. And for the average person, that just isn’t good enough.
Which is why it always seems to come back to religion, which is the apparent home base for the certainty that science refuses to claim. It is not the only place it can be found, to be sure, and any arguments that pit Religion against Science are misguided as a result. Rather, it’s about a particular kind of thinking, a yearning for certainty and solidity in a confusing and chaotic world – aka, human nature – where religion provides one manifestation of the psychology. Not the sole manifestation; just one very clear archetypal example.
The only responsible way to discuss this, in my view, is to look at the psychology behind the religion, and the true basis of science, and see where those are in conflict. Otherwise, you’re sparring with shadows.
You’ll never get science and religion together - they’re like two positively charged ions.
Oh no!
The Proton-Proton-Collider is doomed!
The thing is, modern science does render fundamental religious beliefs, like the existence of God, impossible, implausible, and/or irrelevant.
It’s bollocks to claim Christianity as a necessity for science, or that science originated in Christian civilizations. Ever heard of a gentleman known as Aristotle? Archimedes? The various advances brought forth out of the areas of the Far East? I don’t often say this, but your claim here is entirely without merit. It’s simply wrong.
Ah, and of course the money that the United States has has no effect on that? The laws governing scientific research have no effect on that? The general education level of the populace, the standard of living among the populace, the total population itself, have no effect on that? No, it’s the atheists that make the difference. Silly me for thinking those factors might be important enough to mention.
Why should creationism be mentioned when evolution is taught (I’m assuming you are referring to public schools here)?
It’s an effort to corrupt the educational sytem into being another sunday school, pursued because there are conflicts between the information between public schools and sunday schools and religion has not the foundation of demonstrable truth necessary to shrug off contrary statements (which in this case have a demonstrable foundation themselves).
It’s an american thing, I think.
Or, at least, they shouldn’t. Of course, as you know, scientists have quite often had a lot of problems getting over well established paradigms; very smart, leading scientists have opposed quantum physics, plate tectonics, the impact theory of dinosaur extinction, the nonexistence of “luminifous ether” and other things. ** Even scientists struggle with science.**
Your post was really well written and said with great intelligence what I was just adequately able to express.
Yes, I live in America and am sadly familiar with the controversy. I was curious to hear what elfkin477 had to say about it though.
And the great thing is that science as a process acknowledges this. Even Nobel Laureates get their papers peer reviewed, after all. There are no Popes or elders whose word should not be questioned. Some conferences I review for remove the names of the authors to try to eliminate the halo effect.
And the thing is, I would argue that it’s not wrong for the scientific establishment, such as it is, to resist those new ideas. Sure, it’s easy to look back in retrospect, and chuckle at the authorities who rejected a now-accepted notion when it first appeared. But that’s the thing: when it first appears, it doesn’t have the weight of evidence or argument.
I’ve written about Wegener before on these boards, because my grandfather is a geologist and I’m familiar with the topic. The idea of continental drift was roundly mocked when it was proposed: and that’s because it was really nothing more than a proposal based on convenient congruence of continental coastlines. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that the evidence really began to mount up (comparative geology, seafloor magnetics, and so on), and the idea got a serious second look.
In the space of a decade, the idea of moving continents went from “you gotta be kidding” to “better tear those chapters out of the textbook.” In historical terms, it’s basically a heartbeat’s worth of time.
And that’s as it should be. Show us the evidence. We are resistant to changing our minds, because we are human, but if you’ve got the goods, we will follow your lead, because we are scientists.
Hindsight is no argument for failures of the establishment to dump old beliefs and accept new ones, because hindsight makes almost everything clearer. In the long term, those beliefs changed, because the evidence demanded they change. Religion, and pseudo-religious ideological systems, have no similar mechanism for adjustment.
What a great post, and what a great insight. Religion says “I believe with a perfect faith.” Science, done right, says “I question with a perfect faith.” Questioning the guy over there is easy, questioning ourselves is tough, especially if our idea sounds really great and the preliminary results look really good.
Perhaps that is because science is a process and religion is a result? I’ve seen plenty of religious people claim that we have faith in materialism or that natural laws are the same everywhere, or in logic or in math. They never seem to get that any of these could and should be tossed out if they don’t work. I’m afraid that even atheists are guilty of this, since so many of my brethren deny that anything supernatural could ever be credited, no matter what the evidence. For me, if overwhelming evidence discredited my materialistic worldview, it would have to go.
In all my 50 years I’ve never once burst into conversation about dinosaurs or the solar system to friends or strangers. How, given the millions of Christians in the United States, did you come up with a discernable sample to make your conclusion? Seriously, how many people in your sample?
I agree with everything you wrote. It seems moderate religions try to reconcile faith and science. It is fundamentalism that rejects any science that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. Although fundamentalism has always had a presence in American culture; today’s fundamentalism has managed to harness political power which makes it much more difficult for science to influence public opinion.
Fundamental religious beliefs, like the existence of God, are irrelevant to science as science. That’s not the same thing at all.
Wrong. God violates a variety of physical laws. Which is why the believers claim God is beyond physical laws ( and often that he’s “beyond logic”, as well ); God, going by everything we know is impossible, but they don’t want to admit that. The same goes for an afterlife and souls as well.
And of course there’s zero evidence for God, and evidence for religious beliefs gets discredited whenever scientific methods are used to look at it.
Bottom line;
The more complex the Universe is, the less I am able to comprehend it and therefore, the less I can be certain of.
The simpler the Universe is, the more I can understand it and be certain of.
The less I can be certain of, the more possibility that I can be wrong. The more I have to be afraid of, the less power I have over my own world (where, as I have stated, “powerlessness = fear = anger”).
“God made the world and created a place in it for me” is a powerful message of simplicity and comfort for small minds.